Poorest Are The Hardest Hit

[blup]

Loving the idea that a correctly sized portion of porridge is the answer to the impact of the economic crisis. That poor people are to blame for their ever increasing poverty.

Blup

 

[robinbanks]

Our Scottish contributors will be on before long to tell us about real porridge.

The stuff that comes in ball form, that you eat like an apple?

 

[robinbanks]

I may be some sort of stereotypical arse, but I'm imagining that some would protest that their human rights were being infringed if you made handouts contingent on going through that.

I'm not so sure it that unreasonable, I mean.. There are parallels to going for a loan/mortgage

 

[Dork Lard]

Loving the idea that a correctly sized portion of porridge is the answer to the impact of the economic crisis. That poor people are to blame for their ever increasing poverty.

That & maybe getting a better job in the city.

I mean, these people just cannot help themselve's, yet expect everyone else to on their behalf.

 

[ajohn]

We live in a country where tax is collected and significant amounts of it are paid out to enable some people to live. Around 1/3 of households get something. Living includes food, accommodative, transport if some one has a job and of course power, It's becoming increasingly difficult to exist without the net and a mobile phone. Most income is paid directly into a bank. Long ago people amused themselves one way or another. Then radio arrived so they listened to that. Then came TV but globalisation lead to companies being able to offer other services via the net. Rather large companies with plenty of money available. Freeview has no where near as much but even that needs the net to make full use of it.

Do people need a cooker, washing machine and a fridge and freezer? In a flat they may even need a tumble drier.

So some tax is dolled out. It's spent which generates profit even for loan sharks at times. Some not exactly sharks, high interest rates as they know that some wont be able to pay it back. Credit card charges account for that and fraud.

Now kids and people in general can get all the vitamins and minerals from porridge. They don't need protein and neither do any other people. Some have probably heard it reduces cholesterol levels. There are a number of factors that relate to that. Sugar is poison, No people can get used to large amounts of it. It's also a preservative. Some breads even have it in them. Fact is there are several processed carbohydrate items that break down far too quickly. I wonder how long it takes dried fruit to break down? I eat an unsweetened muesli with a bit of dried fruit in it and nuts. Others with sugar taste too sweet. I cut my sugar intake down yonks ago from 2 teaspoons in coffee or tea. It's easy to do over several months but what about processed food that breaks down too quickly? They don't taste sweet.

Salt is similar to sugar in some ways. How easy it is to get used to some quantity. That has been cut down in a lot of processed items so stick curry spices in to compensate.

Power foods. What a great term to use to sell them. Fruits that have certain substances in them that many others have as well. Kids of course don't need any.

 

[blup]

More choice = more of the same. The failed promise of privatisation.

Blup

 

[diy_fun_uk]

Of course the poorest are always hardest hit. In terms of the thread title, it's almost a non conversation in the sense that it's obvious.

Here's another way to look at society. We should all be grateful that not everyone is ambitious. We should be equally grateful that some are content to do so-called unskilled jobs their entire life. Why? Well, can you imagine what our society would be like if literally everyone genuinely strove to be the best they can be? If everyone had their eyes set on a good job, apprenticeship or university course. Even with increasing automation, who would do the low level unskilled jobs that still require a human?

Socioeconomically, we need people to serve the lower rungs. I'd suggest these people should have better pay and conditions and be valued more than they often are.

Start of covid a politician said on something like Question Time that a robust review of the care sector was needed. The sector needed to be treated as a viable career option for people with a good pay and condition structure he said.

How's that going?

Btw I don't need a lecture on how people need to help themselves blah blah blah. I get all that. It's a multi-faceted complex challenge. However my above points in my view stand and are valid.

Edit: If something's announced e.g. a £10 charge every time you drive into a certain zone, who suffers financially?

 

[securespark]

Poor people buy cheap food.

In other news.

(and they will eat your porridge, given half a chance.)

Unless Goldilocks gets there first.

 

[ajohn]

Btw I don't need a lecture on how people need to help themselves blah blah blah. I get all that. It's a multi-faceted complex challenge. However my above points in my view stand and are valid.

They make me recollect a comment made by a Tory. Rather cynical but is some ways factual. Not possible to resurrect Stoke on Trent. They may as well all move to the SE. The area people live in does have a bearing on prospects.

 

[Ihavenojob]

They make me recollect a comment made by a Tory. Rather cynical but is some ways factual. Not possible to resurrect Stoke on Trent. They may as well all move to the SE. The area people live in does have a bearing on prospects.

Loads of poor people living in the south east, London especially. Why people on benefits ( or any poor people) would want to live there is beyond me.

 

[Justin Passing]

Of course the poorest are always hardest hit. In terms of the thread title, it's almost a non conversation in the sense that it's obvious.

Here's another way to look at society. We should all be grateful that not everyone is ambitious. We should be equally grateful that some are content to do so-called unskilled jobs their entire life. Why? Well, can you imagine what our society would be like if literally everyone genuinely strove to be the best they can be? If everyone had their eyes set on a good job, apprenticeship or university course. Even with increasing automation, who would do the low level unskilled jobs that still require a human?

Socioeconomically, we need people to serve the lower rungs. I'd suggest these people should have better pay and conditions and be valued more than they often are.

Start of covid a politician said on something like Question Time that a robust review of the care sector was needed. The sector needed to be treated as a viable career option for people with a good pay and condition structure he said.

How's that going?

Btw I don't need a lecture on how people need to help themselves blah blah blah. I get all that. It's a multi-faceted complex challenge. However my above points in my view stand and are valid.

Edit: If something's announced e.g. a £10 charge every time you drive into a certain zone, who suffers financially?

I get where you're coming from. Orwell's proles? But it's complex, where do you draw the line? Not everyone going to a food bank is the size of a house, chain smoking with their 9 kids in tow each clutching their iPhone and pit bull crosses with gold studded collars. Would it be OK if there were, because "we" have to allow them the freedoms to make those choices?

It's not blah blah to expect people to take some responsibility for their life. How often do we hear that people can't afford to heat their (possibly free) food? Is that true? Do they know what it costs? Have they tried to find out what it costs? Would they believe anyone who told them? Or are they going to sneer at you and tell you you're part of the elite in a conspiracy to keep them poor - supported by the trolls.

Yes we need lower-rungs to be filled with humans, and none are as bad as the parody just described.
Some just need more money
but some do need education, and some need a carrot,
and some need a stick.

 

[ajohn]

Loads of poor people living in the south east, London especially. Why people on benefits ( or any poor people) would want to live there is beyond me.

Probably why many live in Stoke On Trent and many other places you care to mention. They live there because they do. It's where they grew up for instance.
Go too London. Ok for a job if offered and you fancy the place which I don't. Fine. A couple of people I have known who long ago went there attracted by the big city bright lights etc survived well because some one took them in an looked after them for a while. These days some one on the dole might choose to do the same thing in the hope of more scope for work. Pass I have no idea. Relative unemployment rates might give a clue.

 

[Justin Passing]

London's always about the highest area for unemployment and poverty but usually just beaten by Birmingham/ W Mids. Ladywood used to be worst.
There's not much in it and the same points apply everywhere. It's not a very fruitful point in the discussion.

 

[diy_fun_uk]

I get where you're coming from. Orwell's proles? But it's complex, where do you draw the line? Not everyone going to a food bank is the size of a house, chain smoking with their 9 kids in tow each clutching their iPhone and pit bull crosses with gold studded collars. Would it be OK if there were, because "we" have to allow them the freedoms to make those choices?

It's not blah blah to expect people to take some responsibility for their life. How often do we hear that people can't afford to heat their (possibly free) food? Is that true? Do they know what it costs? Have they tried to find out what it costs? Would they believe anyone who told them? Or are they going to sneer at you and tell you you're part of the elite in a conspiracy to keep them poor - supported by the trolls.

Yes we need lower-rungs to be filled with humans, and none are as bad as the parody just described.
Some just need more money
but some do need education, and some need a carrot,
and some need a stick.

My blah blah blah wasn't directed at folk needing to take more responsibility etc. It was directed at folk on here in terms of me not needing a lecture on why the poor need to help themselves more and so on.

Our education system isn't fit for purpose. By its very nature and objectives, it sticks to a relatively rigid curriculum that doesn't suit every pupil. The ideal would be a more flexible curriculum from a young age that could adapt to the strengths of each child. Of course that can't be delivered for a number of reasons, however in an ideal world it would be so.

I've got to repeat myself, the issue of poor people, the benefits system etc is so complex and multi-faceted. No one actually has a credible solution to it and, truth be told, no one ever will.

 

[Brigadier]

Some are underpaid for the role they do (value they add), and some are paid "fairly" for their role; it's just not much money.

I've worked with people whose sole role was leaf sweeping and litter picking in a public park. Fine.
They were not going to progress beyond that though, if only because they didn't have the mentality / faculty to organise themselves to do this; they literally had to be pointed at their task i.e. managed. No chance of them managing a team of two then (themselves, and their charge).

At some point, these sort of "menial" jobs will cease to exist: IIRC, Judge Smales (?)
in Caddyshack told a young caddy "the world needs ditch diggers too!"
But that was in the eighties, and probably won't be the case in the future. Will some people even have the opportunity to support themselves then, if roles for which they're suitable (can cope with?) no longer exist?

And if they can't, society will have to support them.
Universal basic income then.